If you went to top schools but your kids are attending a lower tier, are you worried about downward mobility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clemson is a great school. There are lots of opportunities there. Not everyone can get into T10 or even T25. For those that can well great for them, T10 especially is a huge leg up, but they have to all fight it out with each other to be above a 3.5. There are still good outcomes from Clemson and similarly ranked schools and the benefit is a less stacked group of undergrads to compete against

Even kids who can get into higher ranked schools choose Clemson. It's a great school and a lovely place to spend 4 years.

Same with UNC. My son is a junior and I thought that UNC would make a nice safety school, but I learned that it's almost as hard to get into as an Ivy!
Parents need to let go of what they thought 30 years ago and relearn the landscape.

The greatest thing schools like UNC achieved is convincing OOS applicants it is somehow as selective as an Ivy...when like 45% of in-state applicants are accepted.

Literally, any flagship tomorrow could somehow become incredibly selective for OOS if they passed a law saying only 5% acceptance for OOS.

I don’t actually think it was really that UNC was trying to convince, it just is what is with the law in place to keep the in-state at 82% and educating its own citizens. It’s a popular school and that’s how it shakes out. They’d make a lot more money if they could accept more like California schools do. My own overachiever wasn’t interested, high school 2.0 was the feeling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t live in the DC area, but where I am, it seems like it almost a flex for the wealthiest families to not really care where their kids go to school. They just want them to have fun, play their sport, whatever. They know their kids are taken care of, they don’t need to grind away with the climbers and strivers.

+1. I am in NYC, and same. Wealthiest families seem not to care, and I get it. One is pushing their talented son towards Broadway. Another enrolled theirs into a loosey-goosey school I wouldn't send my kids to if it were free, let alone be paying private tuition for. A third one is a grad of Trinity, but said too much pressure and is sending his kids to a small private school in Brooklyn.

This is the biggest piece of absolute nonsense. Go look at the instagrams for Fieldston, Horace Mann, Trinity, etc. where all the wealthiest families send their kids. It's absolutely chock full of top schools. Like by a factor of 10-to-1 kids are attending a top 50 national or top 20 SLAC vs. anything outside that group.

There is a difference between the kids going to top schools and the parents obsessing over it/thinking their kids’ lives are over if they don’t, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The worry about downward mobility and college is NOT about the education but about the peer group.

This is the worry:
Kid that goes to Duke is going to be generally surrounded by financial-privileged, connected, worldly, and/or highly motivated students. Kid that goes to Radford is going to be generally surrounded by students that have a very narrow view of life, will stay in Virginia, are not worldly, will graduate with loans, have families that drag them down.

I am NOT saying that a Duke graduate can’t be a loafer, or a Radford graduate can’t be a successful CEO or doctor; I’m saying that the those of us with wealth but not generational wealth worry that our kid that goes to Radford will end of downward mobile because of peer group.

This is precisely the concern! I see it all the time in my field; even among very bright students, many are over-influenced by their surrounding peers and will push themselves harder when around motivated kids, and slack off when not. They need to be with the best of the best (if they really are smart enough; if not it will cause significant problems).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The worry about downward mobility and college is NOT about the education but about the peer group.

This is the worry:
Kid that goes to Duke is going to be generally surrounded by financial-privileged, connected, worldly, and/or highly motivated students. Kid that goes to Radford is going to be generally surrounded by students that have a very narrow view of life, will stay in Virginia, are not worldly, will graduate with loans, have families that drag them down.

I am NOT saying that a Duke graduate can’t be a loafer, or a Radford graduate can’t be a successful CEO or doctor; I’m saying that the those of us with wealth but not generational wealth worry that our kid that goes to Radford will end of downward mobile because of peer group.

After college, some of these peers will not remain friends, lose touch, move, etc. It’s easier now with social media, but college doesn’t guarantee lifelong friendships.

Alum groups and networks are strong, so that helps, plus once the elite kid is in the doctor/lawyer/professor job they automatically are in a different peer group forever.
However, Clemson is no where near Radford, so OP is worrying unnecessarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The worry about downward mobility and college is NOT about the education but about the peer group.

This is the worry:
Kid that goes to Duke is going to be generally surrounded by financial-privileged, connected, worldly, and/or highly motivated students. Kid that goes to Radford is going to be generally surrounded by students that have a very narrow view of life, will stay in Virginia, are not worldly, will graduate with loans, have families that drag them down.

I am NOT saying that a Duke graduate can’t be a loafer, or a Radford graduate can’t be a successful CEO or doctor; I’m saying that the those of us with wealth but not generational wealth worry that our kid that goes to Radford will end of downward mobile because of peer group.

This is precisely the concern! I see it all the time in my field; even among very bright students, many are over-influenced by their surrounding peers and will push themselves harder when around motivated kids, and slack off when not. They need to be with the best of the best (if they really are smart enough; if not it will cause significant problems).

This makes me feel so sad for your children. (And the PP’s.) If I really tried hard to orchestrate my children’s peer groups and instill in them an expectation that only the “best of the best” are worthy friends or mates, it would undoubtedly cause a huge strain on our relationship, and likely on their mental health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The worry about downward mobility and college is NOT about the education but about the peer group.

This is the worry:
Kid that goes to Duke is going to be generally surrounded by financial-privileged, connected, worldly, and/or highly motivated students. Kid that goes to Radford is going to be generally surrounded by students that have a very narrow view of life, will stay in Virginia, are not worldly, will graduate with loans, have families that drag them down.

I am NOT saying that a Duke graduate can’t be a loafer, or a Radford graduate can’t be a successful CEO or doctor; I’m saying that the those of us with wealth but not generational wealth worry that our kid that goes to Radford will end of downward mobile because of peer group.

This is precisely the concern! I see it all the time in my field; even among very bright students, many are over-influenced by their surrounding peers and will push themselves harder when around motivated kids, and slack off when not. They need to be with the best of the best (if they really are smart enough; if not it will cause significant problems).

This makes me feel so sad for your children. (And the PP’s.) If I really tried hard to orchestrate my children’s peer groups and instill in them an expectation that only the “best of the best” are worthy friends or mates, it would undoubtedly cause a huge strain on our relationship, and likely on their mental health.

Imagine how these kids are going to react when they get into the workforce and someone that isn’t “the best of the best” is their boss. And then another gets promoted first. Yikes.

[Anonymous]

As a mother, I believe in giving my child every opportunity to succeed. If they chose a path that didn’t lead to a university at least on par with George Washington University, I would seriously consider medically assisted death, because without that chance, life would lose its meaning for both of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a mother, I believe in giving my child every opportunity to succeed. If they chose a path that didn’t lead to a university at least on par with George Washington University, I would seriously consider medically assisted death, because without that chance, life would lose its meaning for both of us.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a mother, I believe in giving my child every opportunity to succeed. If they chose a path that didn’t lead to a university at least on par with George Washington University, I would seriously consider medically assisted death, because without that chance, life would lose its meaning for both of us.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

I understand why you’d think that, but it’s not sarcasm. As a mother, I feel deeply responsible for my child’s future, and if they chose not to pursue a top-tier education, it would feel like losing everything. It’s extreme, but the weight of that disappointment could be overwhelming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a mother, I believe in giving my child every opportunity to succeed. If they chose a path that didn’t lead to a university at least on par with George Washington University, I would seriously consider medically assisted death, because without that chance, life would lose its meaning for both of us.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

I understand why you’d think that, but it’s not sarcasm. As a mother, I feel deeply responsible for my child’s future, and if they chose not to pursue a top-tier education, it would feel like losing everything. It’s extreme, but the weight of that disappointment could be overwhelming.

Fair enough, your kid’s going to need a high paying job to pay for therapy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a mother, I believe in giving my child every opportunity to succeed. If they chose a path that didn’t lead to a university at least on par with George Washington University, I would seriously consider medically assisted death, because without that chance, life would lose its meaning for both of us.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

I understand why you’d think that, but it’s not sarcasm. As a mother, I feel deeply responsible for my child’s future, and if they chose not to pursue a top-tier education, it would feel like losing everything. It’s extreme, but the weight of that disappointment could be overwhelming.

I am sorry, this is not normal. I say this with a child at an Ivy and a child at one you’d end your life over. I know they will both be okay, and I don’t feel disappointment.

[Anonymous]

I am an attorney and both my kids have learning disabilities and are ND, so I expect that they will be "downwardly mobile". As of right now, neither one of them wants to have children, so that will make their lives easier and less expensive.

For my Junior, we are working on a plan that will get him into a job that he is qualified for and that should pay well enough for a lifestyle that he can maintain. I will be able to give him some "starting out money" and I should be able to help him out financially if needed. We talk about what he could reasonably afford, the skills that he should really learn if he wants to have a better home than he can afford (e.g., carpentry), and money management.

I don't really worry about the fact that he won't make as much money as me. As long as he is happy and can support himself, I'll be happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a mother, I believe in giving my child every opportunity to succeed. If they chose a path that didn’t lead to a university at least on par with George Washington University, I would seriously consider medically assisted death, because without that chance, life would lose its meaning for both of us.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

I understand why you’d think that, but it’s not sarcasm. As a mother, I feel deeply responsible for my child’s future, and if they chose not to pursue a top-tier education, it would feel like losing everything. It’s extreme, but the weight of that disappointment could be overwhelming.

Therapy. Money can buy it, and it’ll make you a much happier person. Your poor child…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a mother, I believe in giving my child every opportunity to succeed. If they chose a path that didn’t lead to a university at least on par with George Washington University, I would seriously consider medically assisted death, because without that chance, life would lose its meaning for both of us.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

I understand why you’d think that, but it’s not sarcasm. As a mother, I feel deeply responsible for my child’s future, and if they chose not to pursue a top-tier education, it would feel like losing everything. It’s extreme, but the weight of that disappointment could be overwhelming.

Fair enough, your kid’s going to need a high paying job to pay for therapy.

You’re missing the point. It’s not about the money or therapy, it’s about providing the best for my child and making sure they don’t settle for anything less than their potential. If you can’t understand that drive, maybe it’s you who needs to rethink what’s really important in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a mother, I believe in giving my child every opportunity to succeed. If they chose a path that didn’t lead to a university at least on par with George Washington University, I would seriously consider medically assisted death, because without that chance, life would lose its meaning for both of us.

I really hope this is sarcasm.

I understand why you’d think that, but it’s not sarcasm. As a mother, I feel deeply responsible for my child’s future, and if they chose not to pursue a top-tier education, it would feel like losing everything. It’s extreme, but the weight of that disappointment could be overwhelming.

Therapy. Money can buy it, and it’ll make you a much happier person. Your poor child…

I’m not advocating for something like that lightly, but I’ve made it clear this is about giving my child every opportunity to thrive, not just survive. If they don’t reach for their full potential, it surpasses simple disappointment. it feels like failure on both our parts. Money can buy therapy, but no amount of it can fill the emptiness of watching your child’s future slip away. If that’s hard to understand, maybe you haven’t felt the weight of that kind of responsibility.